The Hobbit

[Growley]

I'm told that the material he added was from extra or later works by Tolkien that had been written around the story... I don't think he actually made it up himself (apart from directorial choices like the slapstick you mentioned). But I agree, the extra material and the decision to take it in a more silly direction doesn't seem to have improved it. Perhaps when it comes to final DVD sets they might take some better choices in editing.

He did a little of both. He took some content from The Silmarillion which is one of his lesser known books, and took some from some of the LOTR books as well. I'm ok with that if it helps bring the story together. But he added in some characters that changed the plot quite a bit, and changed other characters enough that it took the focus of the story off of Bilbo. The Hobbit is about Bilbo. It's his story. He also tried to make it some sort of epic story like LOTR. The Hobbit wasn't written to be epic.

Oh, I better quit before I get going...

 

[i.keenum]

Ya but of you take it just on movie value it is allot better than most of that crap holly woods pushing out. I found out extremely entertaining and it was over before I knew it.

 

[Puff Daddy]

Spoiler alert if you haven't seen the film. Might want to skip this post over.

I saw the film yesterday. Though it was enjoyable, and I'll both buy the DVD and await the next episode, I do feel that they failed in a couple of areas.

The LOTR movies, though certainly fantasy, were intended to be serious. Nothing wrong with a little wry humor deftly sprinkled in here and there, but some of the humor they put in The Hobbit was awfully amateurish (crazy wood wizard with a land sleigh drawn by rabbits? Come on!) There was also humor that could have worked if it hadn't been dumbed down for a 10 year old audience. Bad idea. A lot of the storyline was perfectly enjoyable, though a bit long winded at times. Not sure if that last part was just my own expectation of a storyline that didn't tire or if they really were unnecessarily extending the thing so as to make it long enough for two feature films when it could have been done well in one 3 hour movie. The LOTR movies are actually better in the extended versions. this one, I think, could have been better served with tighter editing.

 

[Greyson]

I agree with your comments there PD. I wonder how much of the lack of severity was due to it being a dutiful film version of essentially a children's book, whereas the full blown LOTR films were written for an adult audience? I think it might have suffered a bit on that account.

I'm also curious if they will stick to the ending the book had where

Spoiler: Spoiler

the dwarves and Bilbo basically had nothing to do with the slaying of the dragon, Bilbo just tells a butterfly fairy thing that the dragon has an exposed spot on his chest and it goes off and tells some random guy who goes and shoots it in the chest? In a kids book that kind of thing is fine, but in terms of adult narrative it's absolutely horrible.

 

[loco pony]

Sorry but the movie sucked so baddly I may have to kick the whole production company and its entire staff in the genitals. I know I will not be bothering with watching the other parts to be released. What a Hollywierd turd. I guess I was expecting the movie to be about the Tolkien book, like a movie version, but instead this was something else entirely.